Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @12:59PM
from the i'm-gonna-tell dept.

Anon1001 sent us the latest developments in the ongoing saga between Miami Attorney Jack Thompson and Penny-Arcade. So far the story goes that Jack has filed a wrongful death suit against Rock Star, claiming that GTA is a cop killing training simulator responsible for the murder of a pair of cops. He also
offered $10k to charity if anyone who would develop some ridiculous murder spree game. When someone did it, and he changed his mind and Penny-Arcade donated the cash instead. All of this is being documented on the Penny Arcade website, in phone calls, rants and comics, as well as an 'I Hate Jack Thompson' T-Shirt. (Note, Slashdot's parent company owns ThinkGeek).
He has now
called the cops claiming harassment. Update: 10/18 17:40 GMT by Z: It seems like this confrontation has been brewing all summer. The most recent altercation is just another link in the chain made by Thompson's reaction to Hot Coffee and his crusade against the Sims 2. Further, PA has put up the scan of the letter to the cops, and a photo of the check.

It's going to happen very soon now, as Jack is getting loonier and loonier. He keeps dancing around direct legal threats, because he knows what will happen. Soon he will slip, and soon after that he won't be a lawyer anymore, and won't THAT be a shame?

It's going to happen very soon now, as Jack is getting loonier and loonier. He keeps dancing around direct legal threats, because he knows what will happen. Soon he will slip, and soon after that he won't be a lawyer anymore, and won't THAT be a shame?

How, pray, does an attorney get disbarred for being a loonie? Half the western governments would lose representatives, MPs, etc. on that claim. More to the point:

He has now called the cops claiming harassment.

He will now harass PA and the thing is, he knows full well how to do it and could make PA suffer in the short run.

I have no doubts he has nary a leg to stand on, bringing this all upon himself by raising himself to a Public Figure, which surrenders certain protections.

GREAT in the sense of successful, of course, not in the sense of "good for the people."

You all are taking note of what he's trying to do, right? He's trying to transform the gamer community's reaction to his lunacy into attacks on his cause, which is, at least in his mind, protecting innocent kids and brave police officers.

It's just a matter of time before it becomes a real simple equation:

Disagreeing with Jack Thompson = Helping to kill cops

At that point, it becomes really easy to pass laws banning the types of videogames that Jack disagrees with. (Then movies, then web sites, maybe even books...)

Yep, he may be just a lawyer right now, but he clearly has higher intentions in mind, and he's using skills that have been taught very well over the past few years to get elected. It doesn't take too much gray matter to realize that soccer moms outnumber gaming advocates by a pretty wide margin, so who would you rather have included in your base?

The crying shame of it is that given America's record of picking leaders lately, he'll probably succeed, unless at least a few people not just read Slashdot, but actually act on what they read here.

Send a message, folks, and get out and vote. And not just for the big elections every four years. Vote in your Congressional elections. Vote in your state elections. Vote for your local councilmembers. Spread the word and get your friend to vote. Don't be afraid to use that fancy gaming machine to write a fickin' letter [vote-smart.org] now and then. What do you say, can we please stop the ensuing madness to come before it gets started?

Jack wants to protect children and cops. Hey, I do too, I just happen to think he's going about it all wrong. The question in my mind now is: Who will protect the rest of us from Jack?

Someone should tell Thompson that in general, kdis and cops don't need protections over and above the ones they receive now. Kids have parents and cops are armed. If having supervisors or weapons are insufficient protections, then your society is collapsing and no further regulation is going to help.

Of course, no one listens to this point of view. It's crazy. Even more importantly, it's UNELECTABLE.

While that may be true, I don't think it's a good path to go down. And others have like former education secretary Bill Bennett: "you could... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
The next step is to say kill all the poor people to reduce poverty or all the dumb people to raise test scores. It may work, but it's not the right thing to do.

It's not an act -- the guy is actually loony. (Or at least, he has an extremely active imagination.) Here [tripod.com] are some other famous outbursts by him.

One example: in 1988, he ran against Janet Reno for DA of Dade County:Thompson's unique campaign message was that Reno was unfit for the job because, as a closeted lesbian with a drinking problem, she was great candidate for blackmail by the criminal element. Jack never explained why this remained a threat even after he exposed her "secret." Reno cruised at the polls.

Following the Flores case Thompson became prominently involved in First Amendment issues, particularly concerning the possible effects of sexually violent material. The Florida Supreme Court ordered that he undergo psychiatric testing during this campaign, which he successfully passed. He later quipped that this made him one of the few sane lawyers working in the state. The specific reasons that prompted the court to require Thompson to be tested, and on what grounds they compelled him, are unknown.

For the sake of reference, in the UK at least, any person working with sexually extreme material (violence, paedophillia, masochism) is usually required by the authorising body to undergo psychiatric checks to ensure no alterior motives exist, or to pre-empt and issues arising.

Things are about to get really interesting. Why? This quote from PennyArcade, updated at 6:30pm: "I don't think we can just ignore him anymore. --Gabe"

Translation: "Jack, you are about to be ridiculed like no other person in the history of the internet. Before this is over, you will be embarassed to speak your own name outloud, former friends will openly laugh in your face, children and animals will mistrust you, and you will reflexively spit at your own reflection out of disgust. And just when you think that things can't get worse, or perhaps it's all over, the fun will begin anew. "

If you want to help your state pass a constitutional law to prohibit the sale of these virtual reality murder and sex simulators to children, if you want any additional information or help, or if you want to help Jack Thompson in any fashion, including prayer, please contact him at 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111, Coral Gables, Florida, or phone him at 305-666-4366. May God bless you, keep you, and protect you and yours.

I'm sure we'll all send our prayer to your office [google.com] most of us really think you need all the help you can get. You seem to be losing your grip on reality, and are suffering some kind of delusions of grandeur and just a bit of a suicidal in the way you've gone and made your self a highly visable target; alarmingly a realativly simple google search on your office address turns up as the number one link, your complaint against California-licensed attorney, Mark Geragos who was attorney for Scott Peterson in his murder trial; that complaint as required by California law not only lists your office address and phone number but your home address, home phone number and cell phone number.We are begging you to realise life is not a video game, you have no free extra lives in the bank, when some whacko finaly tracks you down and puts a bullet in you it will most likely hurt you very badly or kill you, Please be careful

He had a "modest proposal" [advancedmn.com], loosely based off Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal (1729)" [wikipedia.org] only not as well written. He offered $10,000 to charity if someone would make his violent videogame idea. Of course, he backed down after groups started to actually make the game.

Penny-Arcade accused him of playing a "shell-game" and donated the money themselves, satisfied that Jack's orginal proposal had been satisfied to the letter.

Clearly original the book was intended purely as a simulator for baby-eating, so we can either use that as instructional material, or offer to donate $10k to charity if someone writes a book about burning books.Wait, someone already wrote a book about that.I guess we skip directly to the step about retracting our offer and suing anyone who mocks us.

He wanted to make a video game about a father who's son does something violent after playing video games. The father would go nuts and kill video game developers. He offered to donate $10k to the charity of the developers choice if the game was made.
A game (actually, a GTA mod) was made, and Thompson reneged on the offer

I sure hope they cite his ass for making a false report. Publications are not harrassment. Jack Thompson himself started this mess. Does he consider himself guilty of "harassing" the makers of GTA?...the video game industry?...game loving Slashdotters everywhere?

Since VGCats were the ones who posted all his contact information, wouldn't it make more sense to go after them? Penny Arcade, who are not really a company lack Jack insists they are, really only recounted a story about Jack and nothing more.

This is exactly what blowhards like Jack Thompson deserve: to be publicly lampooned for their ridiculous actions.

What does this man think he's going to accomplish? His vitriolic actions are very unlikely to change anyone's mind about the issue of video game violence. I teach argumentative writing and rhetoric to college students; one of the first things we teach is to know one's audience. Very few people of the ultra-conservative persuasion, however, need to be persuaded - they already are fanatically against video games that contain violence, sex, etc.

And his tactics - wilfully distorting the truth, branding video game makers as murderers, setting up straw men to attack in his ravings about violent entertainment - well, I doubt anyone who's played the games he's targeting is going to burn their copy of GTA because of the things Thompson is saying.

Bravo, Penny Arcade, for helping him do what he'd end up doing anyway: alienating anyone who might have listened to a more logical or reasonable argument against game violence, and generating more media attention for Rockstar Games et al. so they will, in turn, sell more games and continue creating popular content. For a lawyer, Thompson seems to have missed that one little maxim: "any press is good press."

"This is exactly what blowhards like Jack Thompson deserve: to be publicly lampooned for their ridiculous actions."

This is exactly what the constitution guarrentees me, you, and everyone else the right to do. Whether or not they deserve it, it's certainly within my constitutional rights. See Jerry Falwell for relevant details.

I took your advice, Ieshan, and looked up Jerry Falwell [wikipedia.org]:

In November 1983, Larry Flynt's sex magazine Hustler carried a parody of a Campari ad[4], featuring a fake interview with Falwell in which he admits that his "first time" was incest with his mother in an outhouse while drunk. Falwell sued for compensation, alleging invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury rejected the invasion of privacy and libel claims, holding that the parody could not have reasonably been taken to describe true events, but ruled in favor of Falwell on the emotional distress claim. This was upheld on appeal. Flynt then appealed to the Supreme Court and won a unanimous decision on February 24, 1988 (Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46); the ruling held that public figures cannot evade First Amendment protections by attempting to recover damages based on emotional distress suffered from parodies.

I don't mean like crazy as an insult crazy, I mean crazy in a medical sense. He really does show many signs of schizophrenia. I mean under the "delusions" sections of the diagnosis he seems ot meet 3 of the 4 to a T:

1. Paranoid delusions, or delusions of persecution, for example believing that people are "out to get" you, or the thought that people are doing things when there is no external evidence that such things are taking place.
2. Delusions of reference - when things in the environment seem to be directly related to you even though they are not. For example it may seem as if people are talking about you or special personal messages are being communicated to you through the TV, radio, or other media.
3. Somatic Delusions are false beliefs about your body - for example that a terrible physical illness exists or that something foreign is inside or passing through your body.
4. Delusions of grandeur - for example when you believe that you are very special or have special powers or abilities. An example of a grandiouse delusion is thinking you are a famous rock star.

Well he certianly seems to think people are out to get him, he seems to have delusions of reference as well, and he sure as hell has delusions of grandeur as he seems to think he's a great crusader against evil. He meets various other criteria as well:

Now of course I am not a psychologist (though that is what my degree is in) and even if I were, you cannot diagnose a condition like schizophrenia from things over the Internet, but there's enough irrational behaviour that it certianly gives me cause to wonder.
The man may honestly be clinicly crazy, and if that's the case, his rationale for his actions isn't likely to make sense to anyone.

This is exactly what blowhards like Jack Thompson deserve: to be publicly lampooned for their ridiculous actions.

No, this is exactly what he wants. All this 'public lampooning' feeds the beast. There is no bad publicity for this guy. Like that cheesy Merlin mini-seires from 1998, the only way to destroy the evil witch is to FORGET JACK THOMPSON. Turn your backs. Ignore him. If he wasn't controversial, producers wouldn't be seeking him out an putting him on news shows. The game news media attraction to him,

I am not a lawyer, but reading the course of communications between Jack Thompson and Penny Arcade, it seems to me that while Penny Arcade is certainly not guilty of criminal harassment, Jack Thompson has violated the Florida Bar's standard of ethics for attorneys. He is using his status as an attorney, as an officer of the court, to threaten/bully private citizens with obviously frivolous suits. (You cannot sue someone for merely e-mailing you, unless it was obscene, a death threat, causing severe emotional distress, etc.!)
While not rising to the point of a suspendable offense, I believe a public reprimand from the Bar is appropriate and needed.

Jack uses a Cyberstalker law in Florida to threaten people who email him. Basically he cussess them out then ends it with "and don't email me back", and when they reply, he says they're harrassing him and to stop or he'll call it Cyberstalking.

Of course, like everything Jacko does, it's never gotten to court. If he actually let it get to a court of law he'd be thrown out forcibly.

Jack uses a Cyberstalker law in Florida to threaten people who email him. Basically he cussess them out then ends it with "and don't email me back", and when they reply, he says they're harrassing him and to stop or he'll call it Cyberstalking.

So let me get this right, if the people who email him just add "and don't email me back" to end of THEIR initial email, HE cannot legally respond? Sounds like FUN.

It seems that most of his quotes seem to deride the geek community, particularly gamers, as somehow not being as intelligent as he is. I'm not surprised at all that he's gotten this kind of backlash, particularly from a group that typically doesn't like to let an issued a challenge go ignored.

I'm also surprised that he hasn't been more thoroughly bashed by Penny Arcade. I would have expected some sort of Fruit F*cker episode gone wrong.

Ok, if GTA is a "cop killing training simulator", then what does that say about the compentency of our police force?

I remember a spot in GTA 3 where I could hide under an overpass and the cops would all jump off the top to their deaths...this would continue indefinately and I found it rather amusing. And now that I know that this is what would happen in real life, I'm going on a crime spree rampage during which I'll wipe out the town's entire police force by crouching near an overpass.

Along the same lines, try the hospital parking lot in Staunton Island when you have 5 stars. There's a short fence at the top of the walls, so when the FBI cars come flying into them, they get some serious (hilarious) air before crashing to their deaths in huge piles.

Oh yeah, GTA trains you in all kinds of important cop-killing techniques and strategies:

- To start your rampage, you'll need weapons and armor. Civilians can get shotguns, pistols, kevlar vests, and double-ended dildos (for hand to hand combat, of course...) from their local police station.

- Stealing a cop car is a great way to start a murder rampage. The best way to do this is to find a car with one cop, and try to open the passenger door. The cop will unlock both doors as he gets out, and leave the keys in the ignition. You can then get in through the passenger door as he runs around the car to catch you, and drive off.

- If you only commit a minor crime, such as bludgeoning a hooker to death with a double-ended dildo in the middle of the street, the police will forget about you in a few minutes.

- For more severe crimes, such as beating a police officer to death with a double-ended dildo, you will have to duck into various dark alleys until you find one marked with a star that will cause the police to forget about you.

- If you do lose the police by spraying your car, refrain from immediately bludgeoning one with your dildo, or they'll recognize you. You have to be patient. It can take up to thirty seconds for the police to forget about the dozens of cops you killed.

- If defeat is inevitable, try to let an on-foot officer catch up to your car so he can arrest you. Despite the trail of destruction behind you and the cop guts stuck in your tire treads, the officer will forgive and forget for a measely $100 bribe. You'll be dropped outside the police station without any of your weapons, so make sure to run back inside and re-arm.

Though I'm sure many following this mess know about it. Jack has also recently recieved a letter from Dr. David Walsh of the National Institute on Media and the Family. In this letter (published on www.gamepolitics.com) Dr. Walsh distances himself and his organization from Jack. His comments tend to really get to the core of what Jack does,
"Your commentary has included extreme hyperbole and your tactics have included personally attacking individuals for whom I have a great deal of respect."
He's like a kid on a playground. Someone does something he doesn't like and he starts yelling about getting his daddy to get them, because his daddy is a cop or a lawyer. Only he is the lawyer...

Quoth the jackass: "I look forward to working with your fine Police Department to shut this little extortion factory down and/or arrest some of its employees."

Extortion factory? That's not a stated opinion, that's stating a (supposed) fact. Better get your own law team together, because libel's a bitch. I'd like to see how many lawyers it will take to get Jack off.

I saw that too... I hope smokinggun keeps on top of this case, because it's going to be funny to read the court transcripts, when Jack explains how a reneged promise to pay $10K was turned into an extortion scheme.

Jack to Judge: "Your honor, these youths tried to extort me $10K by donating $10k to a charity in my name!"

Actually, yeah -First, it can be expected to be taken seriously - after all, the guy is a lawyer, and he is filing a complaint with the police. So either he expects that statement to be taken seriously or he's filing a falce claim.

Second, he's an attorney lodging a complaint - extortion has a very specific legal definition and meaning, it isn't a word an attorny lodging a complaint with the police would be throwing around lightly. He either is actually accusing them of extortion or he is incompetent and is

Jack Thomson is trying to SAVE YOU! Ever since the first Lemming exploded the video game industry has been corrupting your minds. You all clearly lack the ability to discern sliding a CG mock-up car through a crowded bus stop in Carmageddon from real world laws and morals. GTA and Bully will spell the end for all the decent God fearing folk of your great nation! Won't someone please think of the children?!!!
*SOB!* *WEEP* *MOAN* What's Next?! GTIB?!!! (Grand Theft Investment Banker) GTE?!!!! (Grand Theft Election) What kind of example would that set for the financial and political leaders of the last bastion of freedom and high-holiness in the world?

....then he (or one of his minions) is aware (or will be aware) of this thread here on Slashdot. Seeing what a over-reacting media whore he seems to be, I suspect that this discussion will be referenced on whatever media outlet he ends up on (likely Fox News, if you want to call what they do journalism) to prove that we "nerds" are a bunch of psychos who are addicted to violent video games and our threats to "run down Jack Thompson with an 18-wheeler" as the AC who posted that comment said will be used as proof of that.

Why not tone down the rhetoric and give him the type of attention he deserves, which is NONE whatsoever?

I always like to ask right-wingers ranting about games and sex causing social decline, "Yeah! I mean, do you know what's happened to rates of violent youth crime and teen pregancny in the last ten years?" They always answer that they're at unprecedented levels, and then are thrown off when I tell them that they've actually been falling quite steadily. Teen pregancy is even at its lowest rate since we began taking statistics in the '40s, down from the all-time high in 1991.

What would be really amusing to me is if they discovered, in 20 years, that untold psychological damage to children was done by The Sims. People spending all day running households like gods, torturing and killing families and developing these horribly twisted personalities. I mean, take a horribly violent, depraved movie -- for example, Saw, and ask what game the creators would probably enjoy playing?

In all seriousness, I think people are both more fragile and more resiliant than they're usually credited with. We handled torturing animals with sticks in the backyard 50 years ago, and we'll handle GTA. And I was going to say something about child-rearing, but then I realized that the last thing anyone wants is more advice on raising kids from a childless twentysomething, so I'll leave it at "the world is probably not coming to an end".

Oh wait. No, I don't buy that line. Uberconservative Republican hacks like Senator Hillary Clinton [dailyillini.com] might want our tax dollars to investigate violence and sex in games, but I'm one conservative who does NOT. LESS governmenting spending on this bullshit.

"Yeah! I mean, do you know what's happened to rates of violent youth crime and teen pregancny in the last ten years?" They always answer that they're at unprecedented levels

Hmmm. Maybe I'm NOT conservative, because I don't believe that either. It's the George Bush cronies and conservative right-wing nuts like Senator Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry [factcheck.org] who have recently been found playing up false numbers for activities that we generally frown upon as being measures of moral decay in our society. No, Republicans, screw you, I'm not buying into that line.

and then are thrown off when I tell them that they've actually been falling quite steadily.

Amen brother. And what's been happening for the last 10-15 years? Unprecedented prosperity, even when you consider the recession a few years ago. Crime rates almost always drop when people are making more money.

Teen pregancy is even at its lowest rate since we began taking statistics in the '40s, down from the all-time high in 1991.

Go go gadget condoms!

What would be really amusing to me is if they discovered, in 20 years, that untold psychological damage to children was done by The Sims. People spending all day running households like gods, torturing and killing families and developing these horribly twisted personalities. I mean, take a horribly violent, depraved movie -- for example, Saw, and ask what game the creators would probably enjoy playing?

uhhh.. The Sims 2 is actually on the list of morally reprehensible games that Jack is crusading against. Seriously.

You all may want to check out the ChatterBox [chatterboxgameshow.com] interview with Gabe and Tycho that was done this past Sunday. Gabe talks a little about his recent conversations with Jack Thompson. Apparently the first thing Jack said after calling Gabe up and establishing his identity was:

"Let me tell you something, idiot."

This utter professionalism is well-reflected in the text of his fax to the Seattle police.

"There are a bunch of computer geeks out there who think...""These idiots have been so careless as to..."

I can only imagine what some of his non-game-related correspondence is like.

Also, this has probably been posted before, but here it is again: the ChatterBox interview [chatterboxgameshow.com] with Thompson. Lunacy thrown into the sharpest relief.

... the crazier Jack Thompson seems to be. Apparently he ran against Janet Reno for the Office of Dade County State Attorney back in 88. He made some pretty ridiculous claims, including that Janet Reno uses call girls [apfn.org]. He's also gotten in an e-mail flamewar with a 14-year old [croqaudile.com], and his quips make the youngster look like Socrates by comparison.

I hope if the mainstream media begins to give Jack Thompson air time, since he is fast becoming a "celebrity", these past deeds are brought up. To ignore them does not accurately portray his real character.

This is how lawyers "solve problems". They sue people. Another way to solve the problem of kids and uberviolent video games would be to make an online web page with a list for parents so that they can click on a game and see how violent it is, and decide whether they want to buy it for their kids. Then you publicize that web site so that parents know its out there. That's how a reasonable and intelligent person would solve the problem. But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and when all you have is a law degree, everything looks like an actionable lawsuit. So he types up a brief in his underwear while he's watching an episode of "Boston Legal", and he thinks he's making a difference.

Gosh, if only there was some way for us to channel our annoyance into something that could undercut the very base of Mr. Thompson's power. If only there was a governing body monitoring the practice of law in Florida that we could contact and ask that they look into his legal harassment of satirists. If only their contact information was this:

"I guess Jay Leno is going to be there (at the ESA convention, where their friend Robert will be presenting the $10k check)".

Dear God and Jesus,

My name is Jayhawk88, but then you already know that. I know I haven't been the best person in the world, and I don't go to church very much, but if you could see to it that this Jack Thompson v. PA feud receives national media attention, I promise to be a good Christian from now on. I will give to the needy, love my fellow man, and praise your name if you will give me Jerry Holkins debating Jack Thompson on The O'Reilly Factor.

Jack Thompson proposes a game in which a father kills innocent people related in some way to gaming, as revenge for his son's death. Someone actually made that game as a mod--and this is irony, if you missed it--to Grand Theft Auto.

If JT wants anyone to play his game, and get vicarious revenge on the game industry, they have to purchase GTA to play it.

Well, I don't own a copy yet. Guess I'll go get one.

BTW, if your reply to this post defines "irony" for me, I'll fucking stab you. Damn, video games do make you violent!

The guy article says this guy welched on a verbal contract where he offered to give $10K to charity (still waiting apparently) if someone developed a game involving pissing on people and killing game store clerks. Apparently the game was made, because Penny Arcade stepped up and paid off the charity reward, which is part of this "harrassment".

Many years ago, we (Meow Media, Inc - parent company of Persian Kitty's Adult Links) were sued [firstamendmentcenter.org] by Jack Thompson in what later became a landmark sixth circuit [uscourts.gov] court of appeals first amendment case. Granted, we were vindicated after two years of legal expenses... but it still cost us several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees, expert witness fees, and appeals fees (which required a second set of attorneys).

While Jack Thompson's lawsuit was grinding its way through the court of appeals, another copy-cat attorney by the name of John DeCamp decided to sue us (Meow Media) for the Columbine shootings [freedomforum.org]!

Soon, every attorney with expensive car payments was jumping on the bandwagon, in [what I perceive as] an effort to collect a "nusiance" settlement from us and other defendants. In fact, this practice became so common and popular that PBS FrontLine ran a feature story [pbs.org] on our collective plights.

Fortunately, when the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the Paducah lawsuit (and reaffirmed this when they rejected the appeal for reconsideration), the other defendants were quick to drop their lawsuits, else face an action sounding in tort. However, that too required attorney fees and retainers for each case, in each particular venue.

For those of you who have not yet gone through lengthy and cumbersome litigation... there is not much you can do to recover the costs involved with defending yourself from most tort litigation. Sure, we could turn around and sue the families of the deceased children who were killed by the shooter... but that's not exactly good publicity, nor does it make for a sympathetic jury.

So here I sit today, a few hundred thousand dollars poorer, watching history repeat itself.

I will offer 10K* to the first person who makes a game involving running Jack Thompson over with an 18-wheeler.**

*10k meaning a 10k text file composed of the words "Jack Thompson is a twit" , as opposed to 10,000 in money**This is satire , a parody of Jack Thompsons Parody ****** This , like J. Thompsons Satire is poor Satire .

+Led the campaign against the 1989 2 Live Crew album "As Nasty As They Wanna Be", and later, Ice T's "Cop Killer."+Filed with the FCC regarding the contents of a 2003 edition of Howard Stern's radio show resulted in Clear Channel Communications being fined $496,000 in 2004.+Filed, in 1999, a $33 million federal products liability lawsuit against several entertainment companies, including Time Warner Inc., Polygram Film Entertainment Distribution Inc., Palm Pictures, Island Pictures and New Line Cinema, Atari Corp., Nintendo of America, Sega of America Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment on behalf of the parents of victims of the 1997 Paducah schoolhouse shootings.+Most recently has taken his tirade against videogame publishers Take Two (Grand Theft Auto series, Bully et. al.), Capcom (Killer 7), and EA (The Sims. Yeah really).

"This guy has really made himself a credible source for irrationality"

The problem is that he *IS* rational, and makes a rational argument. Just many people are so hell-bent on attacking the guy that they forget this fact. He bases clear sound and logical arguments.

The problem is that his whole argument is built upon certain premisses that just don't coincide with any reality that I'm aware of. He claims that people "train on GTA to kill cops"? What part about GTA lets me pick up a gun and use it to kill a cop? It may train my behavior, but it doesn't train those skills that I need to shoot a weapon with the accuracy that people like, the Columbine shooters exhibited.

When I loaded up this radio program I was ready to hear some crackpot wizzing away again like all the other crackpots out there. But this guy isn't like that. He's intelligent, and sane. He's just using some fantasy pixie-dust premisses that support his preconceived opinion that artistic violence envokes violence in the audience.

I wonder what he'd have to say about the real Grimm Fairytales... "Of course we started the Crusades, just look at what they were teaching their kids! After a decade of training on stories of knights kill things and wolves eating small children, they had the whole skillset needed to launch a massive compaign to regain the Holy Land!"

This guy (Thompson) is railing against freedom of expression, and the mainstream press is ignoring him in droves.

Are you kidding me? The mainstream press loves this guy. The hot coffee mod "scandal" is but his latest whipping boy. This guy has scored a lot of prime time interviews and news stories on major outlets since the early '90s with, among other things, demands that 2 Live Crew's "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" and Ice T's "Cop Killer" be banned (those were big news items at the time), been a major factor behind several indecency fines Howard Stern received from the FCC, and been a part of damn near every news story on the dangers of violent video games.

This is the guy who insisted that Columbine was caused by DOOM being a "murder simulator". He has sued, among others Time Warner Inc., Polygram Film Entertainment Distribution Inc., Palm Pictures, Island Pictures and New Line Cinema, Atari Corp., Nintendo of America, Sega of America Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment under Federal Product Liability laws after a different school shooting.

His allegations led Dateline NBC to report that Lee Boyd Malvo, the beltway sniper, had "trained extensively using Halo".

He has been interviewed numerous times on CBS, including one famous instance in which he compared Doug Lowesnstein of the ESA to Joseph Goebbels..

He has appeared on 60 minutes to discuss how Grand Theft Auto (he alleges) trained a young man to murder two police officers.

No, the problem is most definitely not that the media is ignoring him. Quite the opposite, really.

Why is the T-Shirt a bit much? Thompson has publicly expressed his views against a certain industry and group of individuals, and some of those people are expressing the view that Thompson is an idiot and his opinion is asinine.

If you say that a group of people are vile sinners who are going to hell, you can bet damn right that group of people is going to publicly disagree with you. I don't really see the problem.

It's called "class", and it's something that is very much lacking in today's society in favor of "shock".

First off, nothing good is EVER accomplished through hatred. Rather, hatred is the cause of so many problems we face today. Glorifying hatered on a t-shirt is counterproductive, and reflects VERY poorly on the reasonable cause the shirt represents. Which leads to my second point...

It's hard to take people seriously when they make a public spectacle of themselves. Face it: the only point of such a t-shirt is to attract attention and elicit a response. Around here we call that "trolling" and such behavior is appropriately dismissed as irrelevant. It should come to no surprise that such behavior offline is similarly disregarded.

Glorifying hatered on a t-shirt is counterproductive, and reflects VERY poorly on the reasonable cause the shirt represents.

Hatred is a human emotion. So unless you bleed green and you have pointy ears, chances are you had a taste of it.

The shirt is an expression of how the wearer feels about a public person, the wearer could be a hypocrite and pretend he meerly dislikes, or disagrees with Thompson, but if we do hate him for consistently attacking our character based solely on our preferred passtime, and his attempt to ban our passtime, then the shirt is simply expressing our feelings in a perfectly reasonable way.

I hate the fact that his vitriol and assinine attacks getting him national attention on 60 Minutes.

I hate the fact that he is even allowed to get away with the very behaviors that he accuses others of simply be the fact that he's a lawyer. As such he should be help to HIGHER standards than those without professional legal training.

I hate that he uses his "position of power", his lawyership, to be a bully.

I hate his total inability to grasp reality and basic concepts like cause and effect.

I hate is blameshifting.

I hate his haircut.

And I LOATHE anyone making any preconceived conclusions about me without any personal knowledge of who I am or anything else, a practice entirely too common from corporations, politicians, and grandstanders these days.

Except they're not saying they think he's an idiot and disagree with his opinion, they're saying they hate him, which is very different. If the T-Shirt said "I disagree with Jack Thompson," that would be a different story.

He's made himself a public figure, that makes him venurable to things like that. It's true, you can't do that to some random private citizen. If I went and started selling "I hate eln" t-shirts tp get back at you I could get in trouble (well, assuming I was using your real name that is). However we are allowed to mock public figures, be they politicians, celebrities, etc. So by going on 60 minutes and the like, he's made himself a public figure and subjected himself to this.

The geeks calling his house and such IS harassment, but Penny Arcade isn't liable for that. Nowhere on their site do I see his contact info or directions to contact him. In fact they say "You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out."

This has been the subject of extensive case law and precedent over the years. Ultimately it is decided by a jury if the case makes it that far.

Here's some elucidating info:

The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.

And some futher explanation of 'public figures':

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

I think in this case, Mr. Thompson is certainly a 'limited public figure' and as such would have a much higher burden of proof in a libel or slander case.

Harassment however is a whole other can of worms.

What law/rule/statute would it be breaking to make/wear/sell a t-shirt that said 'I hate John Smith'?

None as far as I know. (IANAL) However you might be treading on thinner ice if you walked around with a t-shirt that said "John Smith murders kittens." or "John Smith is a homosexual."

The guy's a jerk, but he won't get the tax break. That goes to the taxable entity that writes the donation check.
You can make a donation to just about every nonprofit "in honor of" somebody, but if the donated funds come out of your bank account, you get the tax break.

>> no i don't think they did give out his e-mail he's just a jackasswell they didn't directly but they did link post this:

You're all asking me for Jack's Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can't give that info out. The fact is that Jack had time to call me after I sent him a sarcastic email. I have no doubt in my mind that he would try and pull some legal bullshit if I post his phone number.

Just because a donation is made in his name doesn't mean that he made it. To take a deduction on a charitable gift you actually have to document that you gave a charitable organization some of your money or goods of a certain value and they received it from you. In this case, PA (depending on how the company is actually structured and where the money actually came from) will probably get to take a deduction.

The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket. You may also be able to help yourself if you can figure the donation in as an adjustment instead of a deduction (but this is not an easy set of rules to meet). You can also sometimes receive beneficial tax credits that when you donate in specific ways or to specific organizations such as with tsunami relief in 2004.

A handy deduction tip: Give your old stuff away to charity instead of having a garage sale. If you are already itemizing your deductions anyway (most homeowners are in this boat) the tax savings from the deduction at a reasonable declared value will bring you more than taking pennies on the dollar from spendthrifts at your sale. Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income).

I don't know the answer to that question, but your post shows that you don't know anything about tax law either.

The only case where a pure cash donation to charity can really be advantageous to your bottom line is if you are teetering on the edge and the deduction will drop your AGI into a lower bracket. You may also be able to help yourself if you can figure the donation in as an adjustment instead of a deduction (but this is not an easy set of rules to meet). You can also sometimes receive beneficial tax credits that when you donate in specific ways or to specific organizations such as with tsunami relief in 2004.

1) "Dropping into a lower tax bracket" alone does not magically save you money. If you donate cash to a real charity, you will ALWAYS pay out more money than you will get back in tax deductions. The term "tax bracket" refers to your "marginal" rate. If you are in the 28% "bracket", it does not mean that you owe 28% on all of your AGI. The U.S uses what is called a "progressive" tax system. That means that you owe X% on the first $Y of your income, A% on the NEXT $B of your income, C% on the NEXT $D, etc. If you drop from $1 over the 28% line to one dollar under the 28% line (into the 15% range), you will have donated two dollars, and you will owe $.43 less in taxes, for a net cash payout (read money out of your pocket) of $1.57. Your charity dollars acutally go LESS far towards reducing your tax bill, the lower bracket you are in.

2) Tsunami relief did NOT give you special tax CREDITS. Instead, it shifted the deduction date deadline, which let folks take a DEDUCTION on their 2004 taxes for donations made in 2005. A credit is dollar-for-dollar reduction in the check you must cut to the IRS. A deduction merely reduces the amount that tax is calculated from.

A handy deduction tip: Give your old stuff away to charity instead of having a garage sale. If you are already itemizing your deductions anyway (most homeowners are in this boat) the tax savings from the deduction at a reasonable declared value will bring you more than taking pennies on the dollar from spendthrifts at your sale. Plus, you dont have to pay taxes on the income from the garage sale (since there is no income).

The "reasonable value" you are allowed to deduct for used household goods is supposed to be what the items would sell for at an establishment such as a thrift shop. Unless your local Salvation Army sells stuff 3x-6x more than a garage sale (depending on your marginal rate), you aren't going to end up on top by doing this.

Yeah. If he is a rightist, he's a really poor representation of what one should be. As both rightist and a video game player, I can say that -- at least for myself -- games have had no real affect on my life. It's entertainment, like going to watch a movie; unless there's something severely wrong with a person, entertainment isn't going to revolutionize the one acts in the real world. Also, if the right is concerned about morality and ethics as it claims to be, the authority of a child's morality and ethics should be placed in the hands of the parents, not some lawsuit-bent lawyer.

I notice some people are calling him a Christian as well, and likewise, if he is a Christian, he's done an utterly poor job representing Jesus. I mean, he called (apparently, in satire) for a game where people piss on the busted brains of dead game shop employees? Oh yeah, that's real Christ-like there Jack. Nevermind the fact that Jesus said to refrain from taking people to court. Ugh.

Yes, I would say this is true in many cases. The psychological reasoning behind it is fascinating, though it makes for a twisted form of reasoning.

Basically, the rationale is that an individual, or a group of like minded individuals, have an attraction to something which has been deemed by the rest of society as being "wrong". To counter this attraction, these individuals seek to eliminate, in totality, that which they are attracted to. In certain cases, where the elimination of the object of attraction is not possible, they seek to make that attraction and/or the slightest expression of that attraction illegal, in the hopes that if this is so, they themselves will no longer be attracted to it, and the burden will be lifted.

Sounds fine and rational on the surface, doesn't it? Therein lies the problem, which these individuals never dare to face: the attraction lies entirely within the realms of their own psychological makeup. Removal of the external representation ultimately does nothing to quell the attraction which lies within their minds and thoughts. If they truely thought that it would work, rather than eliminate the external sources, they would just remove themselves from societal forces entirely, either via suicide (in the extreme case), or through self-imposed isolation or exile (moderately extreme, but likely the classic method for dealing with the pains of society by individuals throughout history - is it any wonder why such practice tends to be part and parcel of most major religions?). In the case of the latter solution (because, after all, sucessful suicide would be a working solution), these individuals would quickly realize that the issues and troubles they (and others) face is within them, and can only be rectified through self-realization and self-actualization...

Is it any wonder that this sounds like the beginning of so many religions?

Anybody with half a rational brain can deduce this. Unfortunately, for many, they have to take the difficult route and either screw up the rest of society which has figured this out already via crazy changes to the law, or return from the wilderness after an extended stay to reveal their "revelation" to the masses (many of whom then agree and seek to follow, giving money and property at every turn) - only after they realize that it is all in their heads, and not much short of changing their worldview will change that.

The thing is, if they would just stop what they were doing, and love themselves for who they are, both physically and mentally, rather than continuing with their self-flaggellation at every turn, the world would likely be a better place overall...